ascribed. Of course, supposing they could bring home to any individual the fact that he had impeded the public navigation, he would be liable to an indictment; but it was clear in this case that the mischief was acknowledged, and that no practical remedy existed. What therefore were they to do? The Bill merely proposed to give the parties the means of preventing the mischief which was acknowlegded, by making it a penal offence to throw materials into those streams which might be carried down to the navigation of the Mersey and Irwell. This was not the first time that such a provision had been introduced into a private Bill. Penal clauses, under similar circumstances, had been introduced into the Bolton Improvement Act of 1854, the Salford Improvement Bill, the River Navigation Act, and the Mersey Docks Act, 1858. He therefore apprehended their Lordships would not think there was any thing in the objection of the noble and learned Lord. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY declined to discuss the principle of the Bill, but supported the Amendment, the whole of the evidence showing that the only things complained of were cinders. THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that what he contended for was simply that the act done and described in the Bill as constituting an offence should be regarded as an offence only in the event of it being attended with the pollution of the waters of any particular stream or an obstruction of its navigation. THE EARL OF DERBY supported the clause, maintaining that the penalties which it proposed to inflict were imposed by a number of provisions in existing Acts. Clause amended, and agreed to. Clause 9 struck out. Remaining clauses agreed to. Report of the Amendments to be received to-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended [No. 105]. EDUCATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN BILL-[BILL No. 94.] SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. THE EARL OF DEVON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it had been sent from the other House where it had received careful consideration. Its object was to enable boards of guardians to provide education for pauper children in certain cases in which, as the law at present stood, they could not now do so. It was universally admitted that pauperism could not be checked until they nurtured the children in habits of self-reliance, independence, and morality, and that those qualities were only to be cultivated by a proper system of education, separate and apart from the workhouse system. He was not disposed to deny that in a considerable number of workhouses everything which could be done was done for the education of pauper children; but it was well known to all who took an interest in the question that a workhouse was a place in which the education of a child could only be carried out under most disadvantageous circumstances. By the first clause the guardians were empowered to send any poor child to certain certified schools, supported by private individuals, and to pay for their maintenance while there a sum not exceeding the average cost of a child in the union. No child, unless an orphan or deserted, could be sent to such a school without the consent of the parents; nor could it be kept at the school longer than the parents were willing. No child was to be sent to any school conducted on principles of a religious denomination to which the child did not belong. The noble Earl said, that if the measure was read a second time, he should propose a clause in Committee limiting the operation of the Bill to England. He recommended the measure to their Lordships as an important auxiliary to the Poor Law in a difficult part of its operation. Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. After a short discussion, in which Lord LYTTELTON and the Earl of HARROWBY took part, LORD REDESDALE said, he would not object to the second reading, but he did not think that the Bill would be attended with all the advantages expected from it. Motion agreed to; Bill read 2 accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next. HER MAJESTY'S ACCESSION. THE EARL OF DERBY asked, whether it was proposed that the House should sit on Friday next, the anniversary of Her Majesty's accession? THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, he had been informed by the officers of the House that it was an invariable rule of their Lordships not to sit on that day. RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH COMPANY BILL-[BILL No. 70.] THIRD READING PUT off. Order of the Day for the Third Reading read. THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN objected to a measure which proposed to sanction an agreement that was not set forth. In Bills of this kind, involving large sums of money, the agreement should be included in a schedule. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, that the agreement with the new Company had been laid before Parliament, and had been some months before the House. The Bill was not for the purpose of giving validity to the entire of that agreement, but simply to sanction the transfer of the cable and other property from the old to the new Company, and the conversion of the £36,000 into annuities. It was a Bill to make the best of a bad bargain. LORD LYVEDEN hoped the noble Duke would postpone the third reading, and consider in the mean time whether the agreement could not be introduced into the Bill, THE DUKE OF ARGYLL believed that the agreement with the new Company was a sensible one, and the question of scheduling it was a mere matter of convenience. LORD REDESDALE remarked, that the transfer of the property was made at a certain price, and that price was not mentioned in the Bill, as he thought it ought to be. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, it was really a question of form. The bargain had been made, and the only point was whether it would be advisable that the agreement with the new Company should be scheduled. He did not think it was, but he was willing to postpone the third reading for a week or ten days to obtain further information. Third Reading put off to Thursday next. House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, June 16, 1862. OMNIBUS FARES.-QUESTION. MR. DAWSON said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the absence of any present limitation of Fares demanded by Conductors of Omnibuses in the Metropolis, it would not be desirable to place these public conveyances under the same regulations as Hackney Carriages; and, whether the Government would undertake legislation with that object? SIR GEORGE GREY said, it was im possible to adopt the same regulations with regard to rates and fares of omnibuses as were applied to Hackney Carriages. Omnibuses came under the general description of stage carriages that ran from one fixed point to another, picking up passengers along the route, and it was not possible to fix any general table of rates which could be applicable to them. There was, however, this regulation: that Conductors could only demand the rate (which must be uniform for all passengers) between certain distances, which was conspicuously painted within the omnibus, so that passengers on the journey might see the fare which the Conductor was entitled to demand. MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he wished to ask if omnibus proprietors could not be compelled to paint the table of fares outside the omnibuses as well as inside? SIR GEORGE GREY said, the law required that a table of fares should be conspicuously painted within the omnibus, the object being that passengers while sitting in the omnibus should have an opportunity of seeing the precise sum that could be demanded from them, and no more could be demanded than was placed on the table. MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he wanted to know whether the fares should not be put outside the omnibus, so that people might see them before they got in? SIR GEORGE GREY replied, that he had stated what the law actually was. EXAMINATIONS UNDER THE REVISED CODE. QUESTION. LORD ROBERT CECIL said, he rose to ask the Vice President of the Council on Education, Whether arrangements have been made at the Council Office for the appointment of Clerks and Deputy In MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Petroleum; Coal spectors to assist in the Examinations re Mines. 39 Discharged Prisoners' Aid. quired by the New Code; and whether, before such appointments are made, an Estimate of the Expense to be incurred on Motion made, and Question proposed, that account will be laid before Parlia- "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the ment? Chair. MR. LOWE replied, that no such appointments had been made, nor was it expected that any would be needed during the current financial year. When the Estimates were presented next year, they would include a provision for any change which might be found necessary. QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND). QUESTION. MR. HENNESSY said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he will lay before the House his Scheme for reducing the Professorships in the Queen's Colleges, and appropriating to other purposes the Grant now given for maintaining the libraries and lighting and cleansing the buildings. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, that now Parliament had consented to appropriate a certain sum, it would be necessary that the proposal for its application should be submitted to the Senate and the Chancellor of the University, and should afterwards be carried out by Royal Statutes. MR. HENNESSY said, he wished to know what reduction was to take place in the number of Professorships? SIR ROBERT PEEL replied, that nothing could be done in the matter until the Chancellor of the University had been consulted. CONSUL AT LAGOS.-QUESTION. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to explain (which the hon. Gentleman was not able to do the other evening) how it was, that although Lagos had been annexed by this country, there was in the Estimates a charge of a Consul at that place? MR. LAYARD begged to explain, in answer to a Question put to him on a previous evening, that the Governor of Lagos and the Consul were one and the same person. The Governor had consular powers in the Bight of Benin, and was paid £500 out of the Colonial Estimates, and £500 out of the Foreign Office Estimates. TRANSFER OF LAND BILL (LORDS). [BILL NO. 101.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. SIR HUGH CAIRNS rose to move as an Amendment that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He hoped he need hardly say that he had no hostility to this Bill. On the contrary, he was most anxious that a measure of the kind should, in some shape or other, be passed; but it was a measure of such gravity and importance that he desired, that if it were passed, it should be made as perfect as possible. Some persons thought that this was only a permissive Bill. Although it was permissive in the sense that no person need take his title to be investigated and registered unless he chose, it was not permissive in this sense, that no sooner did any person take his title to be examined than there commenced a course of action which would bring him into conflict with all surrounding owners of land, who would have no choice or option in the matter. If any owner of an estate desired that his title should be registered, it would be necessary that the boundaries of that estate should be accurately ascertained, and all the owners of surrounding property, with whom there might have been disputes as to boundaries which had laid dormant for thirty or fourty years, must be placed in antagonism with him, in order to see that their property was not encroached upon. The same thing would occur as to rights of road, rights of way, rights of sporting, or rights of drainage. He did not say that this was improper-probably it was necessary-but at the same time it materially detracted from the permis sive character of the Bill. In one respect, however, this Bill differed from all others which had been proposed; it provided that after a title had been registered, the contents of all deeds affecting the estate should be placed upon the register; and therefore the state of things which he had represented as arising upon the registry of the title would be reproduced upon the occasion of every subsequent dealing with the estate. The measure, though permissive in terms, was really compulsory in substance. Moreover, the Bill was admitted by the Government to run entirely counter to the Report of the Royal Commission which considered this subject and made its Report in 1854. The present Lord Chancellor, the Vice Presi dent of the Council of Education (Mr. Lowe), and the present Speaker were Members of that Commission, and con- be the qualifications of these examiners, curred in that Report, and so did, with but he could find nothing except that the certain exceptions, the Advocate General. Lord Chancellor might appoint as many as The Commission made a Report totally he pleased; and, for aught that appeared condemnatory of a system of registration in the Bill to the contrary, they might be of deeds, as coupled with a registration of street-sweepers. It was not stated that titles, a system to which the present Bill they were to be conversant with the law, gave effect. Under these circumstances or what was to be their remuneration, he ventured to think that the measure which, of itself might afford some indicarequired very peculiar examination. It tion of the qualifications expected. Anowould doubtless be urged that the Bill ther provision was to the effect that no had undergone consideration in a Select title should be accepted for registration as Committee of the other House, and indefeasible, save such as a court of equity came down with the sanction of that would deem valid and marketable. That House. But in the first division, upon principle was wholly unknown in the counthe question whether there should be a try, Ireland, from which the present mearegistry of lands as provided by the mea- sure was professed to be taken; and the sure, there were in the minority some of principle laid down as the basis on which the most eminent legal Members of the the Examiners should proceed was entirely House of Lords. Therefore it must not wrong; for a court of equity, having two be presumed that there was anything like persons before it, the purchaser and seller, a concurrence of the legal Members of the might decide as between those two, and other House in the provisions of the Bill. these parties were bound by the decision; Another singular circunstance connected but it never decided as to third parties. with this Bill seemed to put an end to the The sixth clause provided that any quesidea that its provisions had been care- tion, doubt, or dispute as to any matter of fully considered; for there had come down title might be referred to such Judge of from the Lords another Bill, called the the Court of Chaucery as the Lord ChanDeclaration of Title Bill; so that the cellor might direct. No idea was given of other House had passed two measures the sort of questions to be referred; 80 having identically the same object in that if the registrar or examiners were view. The Solicitor General intimated bold and rash men, they might decide matthe other night that he should be pre- ters themselves, according to their own pared at the proper time to incorporate discretion; and if they were timid or the Declaration of Title Bill with the pro- slothful, they might refer all manner of visions of the present Bill; but this, he questions to the court. The seventh was thought, would be rather a difficult thing a most strange clause, for it declared, that to effect. Of course, upon such a Mo- on investigation, if it should appear that tion as he now made, it would be im- the title was good and marketable, save in proper to go into a consideration of the respect of some contingency which had not details of the measure; but he would happened-why, whoever heard of a consimply refer to three or four clauses, tingency that had happened?-or of some and then ask hon. Members whether uncertainty which could not be ascertained the Bill could be satisfactorily discuss- -as if an uncertainty could be ascertained ed in the whole House. By the fifth -then it should be lawful for the Judge of and three following clauses it was enact- the Court of Chancery to declare the title ed, that if any owner of property brought subject to that contingency or uncertainty. his title to be examined and registered, An owner, subject to the contingency, the title should be examined by the re- suppose, of his son attaining the age of gistrar and the examiners of title in twenty-one years, would, under that clause, such manner as a general order should have difficulties to contend with before he subsequently direct. Therefore all the could have his title registered; and after information vouchsafed was that the ex- he had succeeded in doing so, all the litigaamination should take place in some way tion and trouble should be gone through to be defined, not by Parliament but by a again by his son. But the climax was general order. Consequently Parliament reached in the eighth clause, which prohad no security as to the mode in which vided, that if the title should be found to be this was to be done by the registrar and good and marketable, the applicant should examiners of title. He had looked then furnish to the registrar, whose duty through the Bill to discover what were to it was to examine and settle it for the pur poses of registration, an exact description of the lands to be registered, and also a statement of the person or persons who were or might become entitled to the lands, their respective interest in the lands, and the incumbrances to which they were subject. In other words, the title was, in the first instance, to be declared good and marketable, and then the owner was to produce proofs that it was so. How the title was to be declared good in the absence of those most essential matters which were not to be brought forward until the title was approved of, he could not see. Such a clause as that might be put into working order in a Select Committee; but could not, he believed, by a discussion across the floor of the House. It might be alleged, that referring the Bill to a Select Committee would occasion delay and inconvenience at this period of the Session. He was anxious that the Bill should pass, and pass this Session; but there was a more important consideration than the passing of a Bill, which was, that it should be made as perfect as possible in its details, and likely to prove as efficient as possible in its working. The principal object was not the passing of a Bill, but the passing of a good Bill. It might be inconvenient to members of his own profession to serve on a Select Committee at this time of the year; but he felt no doubt that referring the measure to such a Committee would economize the time of the House. He did not think it was open to Government to object to that course on the ground that it would cause delay, because the Bill had come down from the Lords as long back as the 2nd of May; and if the Government had been anxious to press it forward, they might have done so. Believing that all the objections to the measure might be remedied most effectually upstairs, he begged to Move that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee," -instead thereof. MR. COLLIER trusted that the House would not accede to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman even if the Government were prepared to do so. The intentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite might be friendly, but his act would be fatal; he never remembered an instance of a Bill referVOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] red to a Select Committee at this period of the Session having been heard of again during the same Session. This measure concerned more or less every Member of the House, and he therefore hoped that hon. Gentlemen who were not lawyers would take part in its discussion. There was nothing in it so abstruse that its provisions could not be comprehended by a House of landowners. What points had the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned which could not be comprehended by any hon. Member? Moreover, it would be far more convenient to his hon. and learned Friends, who were engaged in their professional pursuits during the day, to consider the details of the measure in the evening sitting. He would not follow his hon. and learned Friend into his minute criticism of one of the clauses, but he put it to the House whether any one of the matters brought under their notice could not be discussed as well in the House as in Select Committee. One question to be determined was, whether the measure should be permissive or compulsory. Why could not any hon. Member take part in determining that question? One of the chief objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Bill was, that it would appoint a new Judge. The House could determine that question, as it had a similar one when the Bankruptcy Bill was discussed. A reform of the system of transferring land was not a new question; it had been debated for upwards of thirty years, and during that period several attempts had been made to effect a reform. The time for detailed discussion had passed. There never was a Session in which the House had so much leisure as in the present; and when hon. Gentlemen went down to their constituents in the autumn, they might have some difficulty in accounting for their time this Session. But he was in hopes that they would be able to say:-At all events we have passed one very important measure, which simplifies the title to land, facilitates its transfer, abolishes laborious investigation into the history for the last thirty years of every plot of land to be sold in the kingdom, decreases lawyers' bills, and increases the value of land. the House would apply itself resolutely to the task, there was still time to pass that measure. If MR. WALPOLE joined in the hope that the measure would pass during the Y |